/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10934657]

>If Buddha and Nietzsche were confronted, could either produce any argument that ought to appeal to the impartial listener? I am not thinking of political arguments. We can imagine them appearing before the Almighty, as in the first chapter of the Book of Job, and offering advice as to the sort of world He should create. What could either say?
>Buddha would open the argument by speaking of the lepers, outcast and miserable; the poor, toiling with aching limbs and barely kept alive by scanty nourishment; the wounded in battle, dying in slow agony; the orphans, ill-treated by cruel guardians; and even the most successful haunted by the thought of failure and death. From all this load of sorrow, he would say, a way of salvation must be found, and salvation can only come through love.
>Nietzsche, whom only Omnipotence could restrain from interrupting, would burst out when his turn came: "Good heavens, man, you must learn to be of tougher fiber. Why go about sniveling because trivial people suffer? Or, for that matter, because great men suffer? Trivial people suffer trivially, great men suffer greatly, and great sufferings are not to be regretted, because they are noble. Your ideal is a purely negative one, absence of suffering, which can completely secured by non-existence. I, on the other hand, have positive ideals. I admire Alcibiades, and the Emperor Frederick II, and Napoleon. For the sake of such men, any misery is worth while. I appeal to You, Lord, as the greatest of creative artists, do not let Your artistic impulses be curbed by the degenerate fear-ridden maunderings of this wretched psychopath."
>Buddha, who in the courts of Heaven has learnt all history since his death, and has mastered science with delight in the knowledge and sorrow at the use to which men have put it, replies with calm urbanity: "You are mistaken, Professor Nietzsche, in thinking my ideal a purely negative one. True, it includes a negative element, the absence of suffering; but it has in addition quite as much that is positive as is to be found in your doctrine. Though I have no special admiration for Alcibiades and Napoleon, I , too, have my heroes; my successor Jesus, because he told men to love their enemies; the men who discovered how to master the forces of nature and secure food with less labour; the medical men who have shown how to diminish disease; the poets and artists and musicians who have caught glimpses of the Divine beatitude. Love and knowledge and delight in beauty are not negations; they are enough to fill the lives of the greatest men that have ever lived."

[Anonymous No.10934662]

>>10934657
>"All the same," Nietzsche replies, "your world would be insipid. You should study Heraclitus, whose works survive complete in the celestial library. Your love is compassion, which is elicited by pain; your truth, if you are honest, is unpleasant, and only to be known thorough suffering; and as to beauty, what is more beautiful than the tiger, who owes his splendour to his fierceness? No, if the Lord should decide for your world, I fear we should all die of boredom.
>"You might," Buddha replies, "because you love pain, and your love of life is a sham. But those who really love life would be happy as no one can be happy in the world as it is."

[Anonymous No.10934746]

>implying jesus wouldnt side with neetchan

[Anonymous No.10934755]

>>10934657
>>10934662
It is no surprise that a man with inverted passions like Russell would hate Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.10934861]

>writing a fanfic in which you self-insert as the Buddha to bitch to God about Nietzsche
The fucking state of Russell.

[Anonymous No.10934866]

>>10934755
What did Russell say/do to make him this anally agitated?

[Anonymous No.10934967]

Why can't anglos just admit they are mad at Nietzsche just because he said anglos were the worst people at doing philosophy?
Its really sad.

[Anonymous No.10934985]

>>10934866
Nothing, Lawrence was bananas.

[Anonymous No.10934994]

>>10934866
He wrote an article called "The Danger to Civilization."

[Anonymous No.10935000]

>>10934985
Russell said he contemplated suicide after reading this letter, it's not like it didn't hit home.

[Anonymous No.10935053]

>>10934755
I could never really stand DHL but you know he's quite right here

[Anonymous No.10936005]

>>10934755
Brutal

[Anonymous No.10936061]

>>10935000
this pleases me greatly to know

[Anonymous No.10936109]

>>10935000
russell also got btfo'd by wittgenstein so hard he considered suicide; dude was an absolute soyboy

[Anonymous No.10937753]

>>10934657
Source? This reads like it's missing a thesis, and I want to know what Russel is arguing for before I judge it.

[Anonymous No.10937776]

>>10934657
betrand russel is your old school closeted homosexual. years of just pent up dick lust without release tends to manifest itself in strange behaviors.

[Anonymous No.10938268]

>>10934755
Holy shit

[Anonymous No.10938277]

>>10936109
>dude was an absolute soyboy
This. He even let his wife fuck other men

[Anonymous No.10938283]

If neetche browsed 4chan he would be one of those guys who call other people cucks and soyboys.

[Anonymous No.10938329]

>>10934657
Buddhism has absolutely nothing to do with “lessening suffering” and an appreciation of science

[Anonymous No.10938335]

He forgot to bring the whip xD

[Anonymous No.10938731]

>>10938283
>If neetche browsed 4chan he would be one of those guys who call other people cucks and soyboys.
based

[Anonymous No.10939039]

>>10934755
This brief letter eviscerates so many writers, it’s actually mesmerizing how effortless it is.

[Anonymous No.10939045]

>>10934657
>and salvation can only come through love

Pretty gay desu

Buddhism is more about the notion of "not self" so maybe the selfless person naturally behaves kindly but it's totally not about going around showering everyone with love like some sort of fag hippie like he makes the buddha sound.

[Anonymous No.10939099]

>>10939039

It eviscerates so many left-wing intellectuals and dishonest conservatives.

[Anonymous No.10939140]

>>10938329
>Buddhism has absolutely nothing to do with “lessening suffering”

But it does. The Buddha saw himself as a physician, not a prophet and not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.10939288]

>>10934861
kek
>>10939140
Isn't the Buddha's whole schtick that suffering is an illusion brought about by desire? At the very least Russell's Buddha seems focused on eliminating suffering by external means rather than internal, and that seems like a very serious misrepresentation of Buddhism. Dishonest, really.

[Anonymous No.10939308]

>>10939288
Dukkha isn't exactly the same as "suffering", because it is also a property of those who reside in the higher realms, where suffering (as we understand it) does not exist. It's often translated as anxiety instead, which is a bit more accurate.

[Anonymous No.10939321]

>>10939099
projection is compulsive if unchecked for long
>>10939140
excellent meme opinion, upboat, shared, liked and subbed to “School of Pleb Insipidities”
>>10939308
Its being trapped in the wheel of becoming, Buddhism is a release from
the world completely. Parinirvana is a soteriological, ontological escape route not anesthesia from a doctor

[Anonymous No.10939323]

>>10934746
I think Jesus would side with the guy who shares much of the same beliefs as him rather than the one who rails against him constantly, calls him weak and pathetic, and admires Pilate more.

[Anonymous No.10939328]

>>10939321
>projection is compulsive if unchecked for long
do elaborate

[Anonymous No.10939333]

>>10939321
>Parinirvana is a soteriological, ontological escape route not anesthesia from a doctor

A doctor doesn't exist to administer anesthesia. He exists to provide cures. The equivalent of anesthesia would be the first djanah, which is a state of pure bliss. Yet this state must also be overcome, because even pure pleasure is still within the realm of dukkha.

[Anonymous No.10939353]

>>10934967
he is right too the anglosphere hasn't produced many worthwhile nettche interpretations

[Anonymous No.10939354]

>>10939328
You saw something that was an indictment of many types of disingenuine moralists and assumed it would apply specifically to your political enemies when it almost certainly could be directed against tradfags and moralizing dishonest reactionaries with bleeding hearts whining to the void about their aryan race being defiled.

That you immediately assigned it to your political opponents is projection, you displaced the ugliness to outside of yourself, instead of soul searching, showing humanity and introspection, you negated the possibility of analysis of your own culture and beliefs by espousing an affirmation of its harmfulness to that which you fear and despise most. Basically just cowardice and blindness, nose blindness, you smell awful but you assume others are the only one’s who could possibly be malodorous and will never get round to cleaning yourself or your clothes you’ve adorned.

Sad!

[Anonymous No.10939360]

>>10939321
I mean it depends on the type of buddhism, but my understanding is that an enlightened state is still within conditioned reality so there is no ontological difference.

[Anonymous No.10939362]

>>10939354
>showing humanity and introspection
Not that guy, but what on earth does "showing humanity" have to do with this? What is 'humanity' when it is a placeholder for so many nebulous concepts?

[Anonymous No.10939369]

>Parallel to their intense intellectual life, Dora and Bertrand wanted to establish, in practice, a new kind of marriage where instead of fidelity there would be loyalty, where there would be no reason for jealousy, and in which they could talk openly about the sexual adventures each of them had. The gamble was risky, but they took it, and Dora pushed it to its ultimate consequences. Dora, much younger (and sexually more spirited than her husband), put her theoretical convictions into practice and took a young lover, an attractive American journalist, war correspondent, and adventurer named Griffin Barry, who was also open-minded. She was not in love with him, as she was with Bertie, but they went on trips and spent some pleasant times together.

>While Russell was on a speaking tour of the United States (where they ultimately cancelled his contracts because of his “immoral” opinions about sex and matrimony), Dora became pregnant by Barry. When she realized it, she wrote to her husband, telling him the news without much enthusiasm. Since she was a defender of the right to abortion, she asked him if he would prefer her to terminate the pregnancy. The philosopher answered by telegram, saying not to do anything, that they could raise the new little one between the three of them. He recognized, as well, that since he hadn’t been doing “his part,” it was good that another man was doing so, since Dora wanted to have more children. When Griffin Barry found out he was going to be a father, he ran away to Paris like any old seducer, and only returned months later to meet Russell face to face.

>And so Harriet was born, Dora’s third child (after John, the first-born, and Kate, my hostess on this visit). Russell plucked up his courage and initially even recognized the baby girl officially as his own, granting her his famous surname of lords and earls. But at the same time he was growing very close, physically and emotionally, to the children’s governess, Patricia (known as Peter) Spence. While Bertie and Dora carried on their travels and untiring intellectual activity, the marriage now had two phantoms at its side. Perhaps what Bertrand could not abide was his wife’s second pregnancy by the same man. In fact, Dora actually wanted another child with Bertrand, but as he was no longer fulfilling his conjugal duties with her, she became pregnant again by her friend the American journalist. And so Roderick was born. Bertrand, then, felt more comfortable with his new love, Peter, and distanced himself from his wife, perhaps no longer able to maintain in practice his theoretical ideals of sexual freedom within matrimony. This was fine up to a certain point, but it was not possible to overlook the issue of paternity.

[Anonymous No.10939378]

>>10934755
>you are really the super-war-spirit
And this is to go... Beyond a super war spirit...

[Anonymous No.10939379]

>>10935000
>>10936109
When was Russell NOT considering suicide? It seems amazing he made it to old age.

[Anonymous No.10939398]

>>10939362
we don’t have time to discuss essences anon, if you really meant what you’re saying you would see what im doing with the other anon is a game and that i don’t mean everything i say as an absolute truth

your intuitions are vaguely founded by come from a wrong view. im not interested in helping you legitimize ill born, but righteous, suspicions

if you’re curious you will push them further and if not then what i’ve said will be affirmed continuously

[Anonymous No.10939424]

>>10934755
I'm not sure I get what he's saying here, probably from lack of context. Is his point that it's hypocritical for Russell to be anti-war but have an aggressive personality?

[Anonymous No.10939434]

Jesus is not worthy of being called Buddha's successor. He chose to suffer, when he could have just accepted the pain, not assigning any significance to it.

[Anonymous No.10939435]

>>10939354
Alright, this might become a rant, but whatever.

I've actually been an anarchist without adjectives for some time now, although i've grown disillusioned with the modern left, which has all but abandoned the notion of being a "real movement" and has instead adopted an attitude of moralizing everything. I had hoped that anarchism wouldn't fall prey to this (and it hasn't become as sterile as most communist spaces on the net), but i can still feel the rot seeping in, now that you have to police every fucking line that you say, and you get called a manarchist whenever you suggest that we should focus on class issues instead of alienating the workers by preaching to them about queer theory. I don't know, maybe i'm just getting too old, but it feels like the edge is gone. It feels like the entire movement lost its balls (i couldn't make that joke on some fora because it'd actually be transphobic, mind you). It's why i actually like /leftypol/.

Strangely enough, I've actually started to become a bit more sympathetic towards idealism and ideology, since it may very well be inevitable. So i started reading a bit about Hegelian idealism, and it turns out that almost all major work on that field (beyond Hegel himself) was done by Italian fascists and the occasional German fellow traveler.

I loathe Traditionalists and other religious reactionaries because of their romanticist bullshit, and i hate the tyrannical aspect of fascism, but i am sympathetic towards its syndicalist economics. I really cannot explain it, but there's something i really like about someone who is open about his hatred. No one is willing to admit that they hate anymore, and the few that do always follow it up with "i only hate you because you made me do it" or "my hatred is ethically sound".

[Anonymous No.10939504]

>>10939424
From what I can tell from the essay in question, he's calling Russell a hypocrite because he hides deep enmity for violent human action behind a facade of aggressive intellectual pacifism. In the same way that an early twentieth century Frenchman might hate and want revenge on a German for the crimes the latter committed, so Russell hates them both, and in the same way as they hate each other. Only Russell doesn't have the courage to pick up a bayonet, so he sticks to righting sanctimonious essays about the need to "safeguard European civilization from barbarism." The essay is here if you want to read it: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/ocj/vol1916/iss3/3/

[Anonymous No.10939643]

>>10939369
Kierkegaard made some statements to the effect that preaching cannot be taken on its own; it always depends on the character of the preacher. And Jesus teaches that "from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Russell proved these statements beyond any doubt. Such an ugly man living such an ugly life- and what ugly works he produced! His philosophy, his words, they all reflect the soul of an individually morally bankrupt.

[Anonymous No.10939658]

>>10939643
Who would you regard as 'good' philosophers then, and who as 'bad' philosophers, using Kierkegaard's example?

[Anonymous No.10939669]

Buddha being a faggot as usual. Based Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.10939673]

>>10934657
Why do Russell quotes read like internet comments?

[Anonymous No.10939718]

>>10934657
It's "the Buddha", "Buddha" is a title not a name.

[Anonymous No.10939721]

>>10939353
Surely this anti-anglo board could not be forgetting the proto neetch, the anglo, shakespeare

[Anonymous No.10939730]

>>10939658
Philosophers who practice what they preach? Kierkegaard himself is certainly one. Philosophers who don't? Nietzsche, Russell are some. Philosophers who didn't really preach anything actionable and we can't really say anything about? Lots of those. I like Nietzsche though, good ideas, but inferior to Kierkegaard.
>>10939673
Because he was literally, and I do not use this word lightly, reddit. It's no surprise that one of the biggest subreddits (you know the one) took its imagery from his ideas.